I would like to share my opinion with the jury. If one of them lived near me, I might leave a little note on their door or email them. Thus, whenever the names of the people on the Casey Anthony jury are released, I will be publishing them here. In addition, I will be publishing whatever other info is released about them, such as addresses or employer information. (In case anyone else wants to talk to them in person or anything.) And I hope the craven, cowardly members of this jury lose their jobs, their friends, their reputations and much more. Make them pariahs. Allies of baby-killers should be treated like the baby-killers themselves. They have dangerously turned an evil, heartless killer loose to walk among us; I am simply grateful I don't live in Orlando.

As for Casey, the continuing drama of her life should be fairly entertaining. I'm sure she will become even more famous, in our celebrity-driven, increasingly-amoral culture that provides polite, respectful obits for mass-murderers like Jack Kevorkian. Since she is very attractive, she will probably be in reality-TV shows or music-videos, possibly marrying a cool actor or musician.

45
comments:

Anonymous
said...

How can you say you will possibly put those jurors in danger? I understand you being upset about the verdict, but to deprive those people of their privacy when you know nothing about the discussions that went on in the jury room seems harsh and unfair.

First of all, in a rational world you would never have heard of Casey Anthony unless you lived in the same town. Second, targeting jury members for making a decision with which you disagree is no better than targeting abortion providers because you don't want women to have the right to control their own bodies.

These people heard the evidence, not the Nancy Grace rants and the Faux News "analysis", and they were not fully convinced of her guilt and being fully convinced is the standard of justice we are supposed to have in this country. Sure having an expensive lawyer probably made the difference, but so what? Maybe Casey got the level of defense that every American accused of a crime should receive.

Charles, I heard of Diane Downs, way before the internet, and I don't live in Oregon. Read my bio: shameless scandalmonger is one of the words I use to describe myself. For a reason. I've been into the genre known as "true crime" since Truman Capote started it.

And Charles and Anon, cut the bullshit melodrama. "put them in danger"? "Targeting"? (laughs ruefully) How many people read this blog now, 20? (I know, right?) I'm bloody dangerous in what I write for 20 people!

Honey, this ain't the New York Times. This ain't even the Spartanburg Herald.

Charles, I can dig not wanting to give someone the death penalty, I certainly could not. But speaking of evidence, how can 31 days of a child missing not even add up to aggravated child abuse? That was in evidence, and it was even admitted to. Now, how did this idiot jury even ignore what was ADMITTED by the defense?

Have you ever had the cops called on you for possible child abuse, just for letting a kid run the neighborhood unsupervised? I have. We live in a world that hyper-supervises parents, then shrugs when a kid is missing for 31days... good God, whats wrong with this picture.

Anon, as for danger, what about the danger the jurors have put everyone in by turning that horrorshow loose on all of us? I guess that's okay with you?

"Sure having an expensive lawyer probably made the difference, but so what?"

Lawyer? I thought you started your comment with a sermon on rationality? Rationally, you DO know how this verdict happened? It wasn't the expensive TEAM of LAWYER(S) of course, it was the PRO BONO AND VERY EXPENSIVE jury consultant, that allowed them to pick the most sympathetic jury. (I consider jury consultants unconstitutional, how about yall?)

Oh wait, you think Casey is entitled to that too, right? And who gives a shit about that little girl wrapped up like garbage in the woods, right?

I guess you've both answered with what's wrong with the fucking country. Thanks for illustrating it in technicolor.

One good point that seems to be forgotten in all this: if the body had not decomposed for so long, there WOULD be more evidence and toxicology, etc. The reason it decomposed for six months is that Casey claimed the child was missing and not dead... so she benefits from her own lies. Same thing with making money off the photos: she made money off a missing child (while supposedly trying to find the child) and not a dead one.

NOW we know that SHE knew the child was dead all along (at least that was the semi-official story from the defense team) and therefore knew she was making money off a dead child. Really disgusting; and you know, so far, nobody has asked her for the money back.

But maybe they will now that Casey is going to be very rich from making lucrative murdering-mommy porn. I hope she is suitably in hock for the rest of her life.

Having to pay people off will upset Casey far more than the death of her child or the total destruction of her family.

You didn't seem to notice that I said that every American accused of a crime deserves the same level of defense as that provided by Casey's expensive lawyer - a very socialist statement.

The Onion has a good video on this subject at http://youtu.be/84phU8of02U

Frankly I don't follow these kinds of crazy stories since they simply aren't important except to the victims and the accused and their families. The point here is that we have two justice systems: one for the wealthy and one for the rest of us. (see video link above). I don't know whether Casey is guilty or not, but I do believe that if the death penalty was off the table and there were options for the jury she might have been convicted of a lesser crime, but we have a winner-take-all system.

Charles, your comment perfectly illustrates why socialism is currently on the skids; you seem to be waaaay out of touch with the great unwashed masses, like so many superior intellectual lefties of the day. You're smart, but you can't connect WITH THE PEOPLE; you proudly place yourself above the rest of us and our unimportant "crazy" concerns. This is not the way to establish class consciousness. Instead, you should get down in the ideological gutter with the rest of us, dude.

This statement of yours explains the problem: Frankly I don't follow these kinds of crazy stories since they simply aren't important except to the victims and the accused and their families.

And so the millions of people engrossed in what you condescendingly tag "crazy stories" are---? --what? Stupid? Dumb? Deluded? If you answer yes to any of these, you are a poor socialist and unable to understand and properly process our common culture. Instead of waving the "crazy story" away, you should seek to understand why this case has grabbed the popular imagination the way it has, and has taken center stage in our national narrative. (That is what a socialist SHOULD be doing.)

This case strikes home due to the turmoil of so many people's home lives today; the prevalence of BPD as an ongoing problem, especially among young women. Many, many families (especially since the economy tanked) contain grandparents raising the children of single moms --which makes for some tremendous psychological and emotional stresses. Are you a single mother or have you ever been one? Dated one? Married one? The parent of one? Etc? Maybe that is one reason this doesn't interest you? But this does NOT mean the story is "crazy" but something people identified with. (Aren't you interested, as a socialist, in what attracts the national imagination and why?)

This case highlighted so much of what is happening with America's middle class right now. I had tremendous sympathy for Casey's parents... there are huge numbers on their Facebook pages. How to account for that? Because it isn't "crazy" at all; it is an extreme situation that nonetheless seems eerily familiar to anyone who has had a difficult time with a teenager or adult child.

This is about US too, is why we followed the case.

And why don't you know that? (sigh)

Fox News understands our fascination, while lefties are here saying we are all following a "crazy story"--again, we see why the Tea Party is winning, once again... (sighs again)

Charles: The point here is that we have two justice systems: one for the wealthy and one for the rest of us. (see video link above).

Absolutely true... and celebrity makes people rich, too-- as this case will make Casey very rich now that she has been acquitted. The defense gambled on that, and now they will be repaid for their gamble.

In our TV age, there is also a special standard of justice for the young, attractive and telegenic... Aileen Wuornos, last woman to get the needle in Florida (if memory serves), didn't have any of those factors going for her, by contrast. Similarly, unattractive Andrea Yates was a mentally-disabled fundie talking to devils... she didn't exactly capture the popular imagination either.

I don't know whether Casey is guilty or not, but I do believe that if the death penalty was off the table and there were options for the jury she might have been convicted of a lesser crime, but we have a winner-take-all system.

I do agree that the prosecution was attempting to game the system for felony murder, which backfired. Casey should have been charged with kidnapping immediately, but there is no such law currently (see link).

YG, you're the 5th person I've heard say that and I think you are probably right. Tomorrow we find out if she gets another year or not... thats the max I think they can give her due to time already served.

Fox News understands our fascination, while lefties are here saying we are all following a "crazy story"--again, we see why the Tea Party is winning, once again... (sighs again),

Good point. I had not thought about that, but since we were switching back and forth between HLN, TruTV, and Fox, I did see some of their coverage. You're right.

In our TV age, there is also a special standard of justice for the young, attractive and telegenic... Aileen Wuornos, last woman to get the needle in Florida (if memory serves), didn't have any of those factors going for her, by contrast...

No kidding. And since "ugly" women are not allowed to be actors, they had to have a regular, pretty actor gain weight and wear prosthetic "ugly" makeup in order to play her in a movie...

I was very surprised, both by the verdict and by the attention the case has gotten; my brother-in-law and sister were down in Florida the week before the case wrapped up and it was Big News. Before last week, the only mentions of the trial I saw were here.

The state did not prove the case. When deciding guilt, facts, not emotion or being boosted by the media into a frenzy is what counts. They had no hard evidence. Yes, she was guilty of neglect, but not murder in the first. Maybe, the state lawyers should have paid attention to the case, and tried her for what she did, neglect of a child that resulted in the death of the child. But, they went for the glory; and made a mockery of our court system by being a TV show, not a courtroom

Dear Daisy I am backing you post and subsequent comments and understand your rage. Bigger people than us will see that child gets justice.The jury should be ashamed of themselves. The selection process must have looked for low-IQ people.Caseys parents should be charged with something.peace and love to you (and to all little children with rotten parents).

But seriously. We have spawned a certain personality type in the West, and its time to come clean. Its on us. The greedhead white guys and black gang members and white boy racist-rednecks such, have all been culturally recognized as specific personalities, sociopathic PROTOTYPE/ARCHTYPES, if you will. Well, feminism has always demanded that we have equality... and so here we are. Time to ANTE UP. We must be equal in all things, and true equality (as we have always said) will mean that there are as many women as men who are, say, engineers or musicians or cake decorators or whatever. We forgot, or tried to forget, that it includes 'the sociopaths'. We will also have an equal number of sociopaths. And it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a female sociopathic archtype too, and it was named (erroneously? stupidly?) a long time ago: Borderline Personality Disorder. Some have a little (me) and some have a lot (whistles dixie) and some appear to be the textbook severe/perfect example, the one the syndrome is NAMED AFTER... we should possibly change the name to Casey Anthony Syndrome, because the fact that she got off is PERFECT. Most people with BPD trash the world and the people around them, and move on, unscathed and unbothered. This is actually the perfect outcome to illustrate the syndrome in its entirety. Like Lizzie Borden, the world will judge her otherwise, but Lizzie was still free to live as she pleased, as Casey will be.

I have decided one of the problems with the Third Wave is its tendency to whistle past the BPD graveyard... they WILL NOT talk about it, and a large number seem to have been given the diagnosis themselves and have written it off as sexist, since it IS mostly given to young women. To me, that is like writing off those male prototypes I listed above: do so at your peril. The mistake is not a recognition of the type, but in assuming all people of a certain demographic are that type, when they are not. (i.e. not all black gang members/Wall st greedheads are sociopaths, but these social roles attract sociopaths and they are therefore greatly represented therein.)

All young middle class women do not have BPD, but the social role of sexxee hottt gurrrll gone wild DOES attract a certain type of person who craves constant attention, as it also breeds an unhealthy and warped narcissism. We have met the enemy and she is us.

In short, a lot of those sexxee hottt gurrrrllls have major rage-issues, and again, we ignore this at our peril.

You know I love ya Daisy, but I hope they do NOT publish the names of the jury. LIke the verdict or not, they didn't gather the evidence or lack of it... they didn't want to give her death with the evidence that they had. I don't believe any of them think she was innocent either.

I think she's guilty as sin. If I were on the jury it would be hung, lol. But they did their job like it or not.

The gov't cannot afford to offer them protection from death threats or harm. The police cannot afford to give them protection. They shouldn't be penalized for doing their civic duty.

I believe that if the state wouldn't have been hell bent on the death penalty, they would have convicted. As far as I'm aware, in FL the judge can overrule the jurors verdict (if they voted for manslaughter, the judge could still give death).

Unfortunately it came down to 'reasonable doubt' and the defense spun so many tales that I couldn't even say for sure what happened. While I know in my heart she did it, if I was on the jury, I'd have to follow the law. The prosecution didn't do their job. Reminded me of the OJ travesty.

A necessary preliminary is that I rarely follow crime news. So while some may find this hard to believe, it is still true that I was largely unaware of Casey Anthony and even now what I know is pretty much limited to a)she was accused of killing her child and b)she was acquitted, which c)generated a flood of reactions from a media that, based on what I gather from those reactions, had her in the electric chair before the trial even started.

That said, Daisy, you know - at least I hope you do - how much I respect you, but in this case I find what you said absolutely outrageous. It is nothing more than a vicious, even scurrilous, attack on the members of the jury because they reached a different conclusion than you did.

You propose to post any and all information you hear about the members of the jury, including names, addresses, and employers, because you want them to be harassed at home and on the job. (Don't deny it; otherwise there is absolutely no point to posting the info. And don't look to an "only 20 people read this" defense: I'm not talking about the social power of your words, I'm talking about their meaning.)

You call them "craven, cowardly," you hope they lose "their jobs, their friends, their reputations and much more." You label them "allies of baby killers" who should be "pariahs."

Because I know you appreciate directness (as you are often enough direct yourself), I will be direct: This is bull, unworthy for anyone, unworthy especially for a decent person such as you are.

Even more: I find it incredibly arrogant - no, make that conceited - for you to assume that you, viewing the trial through the mist and fog of what I gather was rather sensational media coverage, understand the issues and the evidence better than the members of the jury who were there every day. Because that is exactly what you are doing.

I'm not going to argue evidence; first off I don't know about it and second, any response along the lines of "well, what about" does not address the point at hand, which is the assertion that you know more about that evidence than the jury, so much more that you call for these "allies of baby-killers" to be driven from society, losing everything they have in the process.

It is beneath you. Far beneath you.

I can understand an initial angry reaction since you obviously were long convinced she was guilty. I can only hope now that in calmer moments to come you dispense with the intent to, according to your own words, do what you can (little though it may be) to destroy the lives of the jurors.

Larry, I don't want anyone to get killed (I don't even eat meat and I even care passionately about not killing COWS), but I assure you, I believe our democratic judicial system was FOUNDED on the idea that juries are accountable. An anonymous jury is like something from Shining Path; jurors with hoods on while they announce their verdicts. An anonymous jury, to me, makes people even MORE angry. Jennifer Ford, the juror who has come forward, seemed sensible and intelligent (I think she decided to come forward for that reason) and I think diffused some of the anger at the jury... she basically sounded exactly like Jojo, above. She also made it clear that her vote of not guilty did not mean "innocent" and does not believe Casey was totally innocent of wrong-doing (again, as Jojo said). Watching her explain her thought process actually diffused my anger--and I think more jurors coming forward and showing themselves to be thoughtful human beings, would diffuse much of this public fury. And at least one of them is currently demanding 5 figures to talk, so they don't seem too worried about anonymity vs. making money.

I have to disagree that juries should be anonymous--anonymous juries containing kkk members convicted thousands of black men in the south for hundreds of years. During the legal arguments yesterday (and did you watch them?) for and against disclosing the names of the jury, I was surprised to learn that hiding jury identities is not a given in all places and at all times, even in mob trials. In the TV age, the practice has gained notoriety, but it was NOT a given even then, and several case examples were given of high-profile cases that featured the jury right on TV with the lawyers and spectators.

And no, I repeat, no sympathy for assholes. I have had to stand up all my life and take responsibility for what I have done, said, believed and written. Drunk, sober, stoned and not. Politically, religiously and every other way. I have had people scream in my face before, as I know you have. Well, its their turn now: take responsibility for your actions. In my opinion, the country (the world?) is going to shit because people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and choices: their jobs, their money, their gasoline guzzling, their trash, their meat, their treatment of children, animals, women, gays, disabled people and so forth and so on... and the world will be a whole lot better when we do. If I was ever on a jury (and so far, they get rid of me faster than you can say "Chairman Mao"), I would be proud of my verdict and seek to explain it, as Jennifer Ford did. Why not? What's to be ashamed of? The OJ jury proudly talked, whether we agreed with them or not. THAT jury has more guts and strength, obviously, than this one. Thus, I do not call them craven and cowardly, they were right out their with their opinions. And that's what I'm talking about.

Larry: Even more: I find it incredibly arrogant - no, make that conceited - for you to assume that you, viewing the trial through the mist and fog of what I gather was rather sensational media coverage, understand the issues and the evidence better than the members of the jury who were there every day. Because that is exactly what you are doing.

Well, let me shock you some more with my arrogance and conceit: I think I know MORE than the jury does, due to 1) all the evidence left out of the trial, that we saw and they did not and 2) the information reported from the past 3 years, which they admitted, they did not follow or they could not have landed on the jury. I followed it all, and I could lock her up with no question.

In fact, the evidence NOT admitted is a lot of why everyone is so pissed off. There was much legal wrangling and most especially, the presence of a pricey jury consultant working for free, which as I said above, I find wholly unconstitutional... I notice you didn't reply to that? (why doesn't anybody ever address that subject?)

which is the assertion that you know more about that evidence than the jury,

I do, and so do most people who followed the trial. Lots was kept away from them, as I said. (you know that, right?)

Larry: so much more that you call for these "allies of baby-killers" to be driven from society, losing everything they have in the process.

Yeah, I'm afraid so. I call allies of baby-killers, like Lindsey Graham, what they are. Sorry, but that's me. If you don't wanna be called that, explain to me, as Jennifer Ford did, why I should not call you that. (Lindsey Graham hasn't)

I don't think the OJ trial jury, or this one, will be any worse for wear... in fact, any of them can make big money at any time. I am shocked that you would feel sorry for them. (sigh) We will have to agree to disagree, Larry.

Meanwhile: I am baaaaad girl and I still shock people! (preens) As I said in my last comment, I gotta little bit o BPD myself. ;)

Jojo, my own feelings about how it all happened, did not agree with the state's case, but that would not stop me from a felony child abuse conviction. (I also believe that Lee dumped the body, based on his decorum, or lack of it, during his testimony... just a gut feeling. Note he didn't show up for sentencing.)

The idea that you do not have buy this story or that story to convict on the lesser, was not adequately explained to the jury, IMHO. I would like to hear what the jury says about that; Jennifer Ford seemed to believe that she had to subscribe to the prosecution theory of duct-tape-as-murder-weapon before they could convict.

I believe these jury consultants try to pick the dumbest people in the jury pool. (OTOH, Phil Spector's jury WAS hung up by a white man with a Ph.D, so there is that!)

And another question for Larry: About those Scottsboro Boys cases I mentioned... would you criticize those verdicts too? Would you allow the racists to stay anonymous? Because they did, for centuries.

Why is this case different? BIAS goes both ways, and pretty young white girls get the breaks, while homeless black men riding the rails, not so much. What checks and balances do you propose for guarding against juries that may hand down unjust verdicts? Because juror anonymity makes that problem worse, not better.

Daisy, that you reacted with the blind rage of an abused child suggests that I had a point. She could have been, probably, convicted of child abuse but she was not charged with child abuse. And her mom and dad could have been convicted of child abuse. Demanding her dead with mom and dad free is no call for justice.

And frankly, saying someone was hurt and betrayed by another person means recognizing them as a survivor. It is not an insult. Esp when the person has spoken of it herself.

Just saying, something tells me you ain't seen real "blind rage", if you think it can be approximated on a blog.

And um, Earth to just saying: one of the charges she was found Not Guilty was AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE. That is the one I am having an especially hard time with, considering the child is DEAD while under her charge. Some poor nanny employees have paid with life sentences for far less direct evidence -- but the children were UNDER THEIR DIRECT CARE, and this is the crux of it.

Is someone responsible for this child's death, or not? And if the person taking care of her won't tell us what happened, who is to be held accountable? Are children's lives expendable?

Two- oohhhh plz do not judge the fine people of FL by this scumbag or the idiot jurors.

BUT, legally, this shit is tough, by JOB descirption, even if the jury thinks the accused is guilty as hell deep down, if they do their job right? They gotta make the decision by the presented case....that's the legal system.

Now does this verdict piss me right the fuck off? Hell yes. If a black woman or a white poor woman or a not conventionally attractive woman had been in this position, she woulda been found guilty, and that is the true load of horsehit right there....

Oh, and if Anthony ends up in jail at all? They will throw her ass in solitary- which will increase her life span. Women prisoners don't go and kill eachother as often as male prisoners, even though there are some women who deserve some killin'....case in point, really.

And Amanda M is a fucking IDIOT, period. I fuckin love it when a pretentious not nosed indy hipset calls slut shaming when she does it herself ALL THE FUCKING TIME, and also happens to be a goddamn moron to boot!

I'm going to say this and only this and then I am going to drop this and speak no more of it.

I don't want anyone to get killed

No, you just want them to be harassed at home, on the street, and at their jobs, until they are "pariahs" who lose "their jobs, their friends, their reputations and much more." Oh, well, that's totally different. Never mind then.

Daisy, this doesn't have a single damn thing to do with "anonymous juries." It has to do with your wish to have as much information as possible about the jurors in this case published and circulated with the openly avowed hope of destroying their lives. You are not talking "accountability," you are talking vengeance.

And you justify this by claiming that you know more about the evidence than the jurors because, after all, you followed the sensationalized media drooling and you "could lock her up with no question" (any case for the defense being unnecessary) because you know all that stuff - that "evidence" and the quotes are deliberate - that was inadmissible in court and so the jury never saw.

So by your own argument, the jurors are "craven, cowardly ... allies of baby killers" since they didn't convict based on evidence they never saw.

This is supposed to be a serious argument? This is supposed to even now, with a chance for a calmer head to emerge, be a justification for a desire to see their lives utterly ruined? Because that is what you said, flat out. You didn't say "anonymous juries are bad," you said you hoped these jurors would be, as I said before, driven from society, losing everything they have in the process because they reached a verdict you're certain was wrong.

That's not an "anonymous jury" issue and that's not justice. That's mob rule. And I say again: It is beneath you.

the presence of a pricey jury consultant working for free ... I notice you didn't reply to that?

Maybe that's because it didn't - and doesn't - have a damn thing to do with what I was talking about.

I am shocked that you would feel sorry for them

I never said anything about feeling sorry for them. Do not even try to put words in my mouth; I guarantee you I won't swallow them. I very deliberately made no judgement about the jurors or the decision because neither was what I was addressing. I was addressing what you said.

So what was shocking here was not an attitude that I never expressed but the attitude which you did and still do express. And no, that's not something to "preen" about.

"Agree to disagree?" I expect that's where we are. I'm sure that soon enough something will come along on which we agree wholeheartedly since we do often enough.

Larry, further reading me the riot act: Daisy, this doesn't have a single damn thing to do with "anonymous juries."

It has everything to do with it. You know, that's pretty insulting, Larry... this is a very solidly-held opinion of mine for a long time. As I wrote, I have read a lot of books about legal cases and all kinds of juries, anon and not. I just wrote two posts about why I feel that way, and you write them off as something I just 'made up' or what? (Why would I listen to two hours of legal arguments about this issue, if I didn't already care a lot about it?)

As I have said umpteen times on this blog -- I don't like when the well-educated start the condescension routine, telling me what I "really" think. I say what I "really think" here on my own blog, there is no subterfuge, no lying and no hidden agendas. Please don't insult me by telling me what I "really" think, when I just told you.

Deal?

It has to do with your wish to have as much information as possible about the jurors in this case published and circulated with the openly avowed hope of destroying their lives. You are not talking "accountability," you are talking vengeance.

See above.

Did somebody not read my last comment, about my anger diffused by Jennifer Ford's interview? Guess they didn't. (see "condescension" above)I am not nearly as pissed as I was, but I think other people still are. A large press conference with the majority of the jurors would go a long way to taking down the public fever.

I notice you have carefully ignored my all of my questions about anon juries in history, too.

Please do me the courtesy of actually reading my replies, okay?

So by your own argument, the jurors are "craven, cowardly ... allies of baby killers" since they didn't convict based on evidence they never saw.

Um, no, (did you read my comparison to the OJ jury?)--because they refuse to take accountability and talk to us about their decision.

Did you read my reply at ALL? Again, very insulting. Its right there, what I meant.

Me, questioning Larry, to no avail: the presence of a pricey jury consultant working for free ... I notice you didn't reply to that?

Larry: Maybe that's because it didn't - and doesn't - have a damn thing to do with what I was talking about.

But *I* said it does, and this is my blog and my thread. You are interrogating me about my opinion, I answer, and you decide it doesn't have anything to do with anything... oh, okay. I see, just mansplainin.

We are talking about the jury and whether they are a valid constitutional jury... whether you believe jury consultants are valid goes right to the heart of that. Just as we see you subscribe to bullshit bourgeois concepts of "admissibility"--you don't address whether paid-outsiders should openly manipulate who gets onto a jury, which is a relatively new development within jurisprudence (as is the concept of "admissibility" of evidence).

Larry: Do not even try to put words in my mouth; I guarantee you I won't swallow them.

Same right backatcha, dude.

So what was shocking here was not an attitude that I never expressed but the attitude which you did and still do express. And no, that's not something to "preen" about.

When the redneck can get the educated person to care about her opinion to this degree? She has won. (Actual respect? The assumption that she indeed means what she says, as the middle-class do? This will likely take another generation yet.)

And one more thing: you might consider why most of the rednecks and other low-echelon folks agree with me on this one. I mean, just consider it. Why is "mob rule" (as Larry calls it), often an angry-redneck/low-class phenomenon? As one of the more reasonable in the mob, one of the reasonable rednecks, I am the one you should talk to. (Thus, if you can't show me basic respect, you can probably forget about the rest of the trailer park.)

I really really really didn't want to continue this but there are some things here I just can't let pass. After this, to avoid having this deteriorate further, I'm not even going to look for any reply for about a week - I will read it, if there is one, just not for some days. That way it will be too late to respond further and we can move on.

1. Not once did I tell you what you "really think." I did not condescend to you. (Speaking of telling someone what they "really mean....") If you truly think that I just now have come to "care about [your] opinion" and even more, that "actual respect" is lacking and will "take another generation," then you clearly have not been paying attention.

2. "That she indeed means what she says" is exactly the assumption that I was making. I assumed that you meant what you said, that you meant it when you said you hoped the jurors lose "their jobs, their friends, their reputations and much more." That you meant it when you called them "allies of baby-killers" who should be driven from society as "pariahs." I was, yes, shocked by that and that is what I wrote about. To say now that this is all about "constitutional juries" is to deny the meaning of your own words.

3. I read your replies. I didn't respond to parts of them because I was focusing on a particular point (see above) and those other parts, including questions of anonymous juries and "pricey jury consultants," were not related to that point. I'm flabbergasted that you can't seem to see that.

4. You said your anger had been diffused; you didn't say your desire to wreak social vengeance on the jurors had changed. If by saying that the one juror had diffused your anger you meant to indicate that the desire had likewise faded, I didn't catch that and good and I'm glad and we can chalk this up to "an initial angry reaction" of the sort of which I certainly have had my share.

5. just mansplainin: Now, that is insulting - and unlike of what you accuse me, deliberately so.

6. my blog and my thread: So no one is allowed to raise a point or an issue other than you, even if it's prompted by your words? When did that start? Your history on this blog says otherwise. I raised a specific point. You want to ignore what I said? Do it. But don't tell me I 'm obligated to stop talking about what I was talking about and start talking about something else. And yes, that is what you did.

7. bullshit bourgeois concepts of "admissibility": Seriously? Really? So every bit of innuendo, every salacious rumor, every prejudicial bit of gossip, every inflammatory description, every bit of hearsay, should be allowed into every trial? (You're talking about a standard here, not something confined to this particular case.) Say yes, and you're talking quite literally about mob rule and quite probably political repression. Say no, and you of necesssity must have standards of admissibility. More to the immediate point, the fact remains that by your own argument, you condemned the jurors for not acting on information they didn't have - which still fails as argument.

8. if you can't show me basic respect: Disagreement is not the same as disrespect. Did it occur to you that the reason I was so taken aback by your words was because of the respect I have for you? Did that notion even cross your mind? It damn well should have.

Finally,

9. the rest of the trailer park: News flash: I live in a trailer park. And I'd estimate that over half of us are on some form of public assistance. As for the "well-educated" crap you keep flinging around, my highest academic achievement is a high-school diploma. It seems I'm not the one making the assumptions.

Larry, for some reason, I thought you were a librarian, which I know requires at least two college degrees for an entry-level position these days. Apologies for that!

I'll let all of that go, but I will reply to this one:

So every bit of innuendo, every salacious rumor, every prejudicial bit of gossip, every inflammatory description, every bit of hearsay, should be allowed into every trial?

Most, yes. I don't know where I would draw the line, if anywhere. If juries are expected to sort through interminable, incomprehensible "expert" testimony that is waaaay over their educational heads (mine too) and frequently contradicts still more experts ...and they are expected to figure out who is really an expert and who isn't (are you kidding?)... if juries are expected to figure out which of hundreds of witnesses are telling the truth and which are not (who has an ax to grind and who does not)... if juries are expected to sort through endless taped jailhouse conversations and figure out what is supposed to be pertinent... etc etc etc... why not? What is this dividing line?

I can think of two pieces of evidence I would have admitted that were not: 1) Casey's previous conviction for check fraud... that goes a long way towards showing what kind of immoral pig she is. But on the other hand, the former "best friend" she stole the checkbook from (Amy H) was a witness against her... so did Amy have an ax to grind, since Casey left her credit rating in shreds? Ya think? Admitting this evidence could also call Amy's testimony into question and expose her agenda... so it cuts both ways, as I think all evidence does.

The other thing I would admit is Lee's bizarre speech at Caylee's memorial service, all that "CMA" stuff, which I think made it clear that Lee was involved. That bolsters MY version of how it all came down, but apparently, these ignorant jurors didn't know they could arrive at any conclusion they wanted to. They didn't have to accept the templates offered by both prosecution AND defense; they could arrive at their own conclusions, but Jennifer Ford's interview convinced me that they were too dumb to do that... it is very difficult for me to stay mad at ignorance/stupidity... but it does make me more resolute in my opinion that more (not less) TV crime shows are required.

Anybody who can't return a simple child abuse conviction after admitting (verified through the 911 call) that for 31 days a child was missing and unaccounted for, well, that is just too fucked up for words.... I lose track of my kid for 31 minutes and I am threatened with child protective services... I guess I should have waited for 31 DAYS and then shrugged: gee, I dunno WHERE the hell she is. ...and that mighta worked, huh? (rolls eyes) (snark)

I think the reason this verdict has infuriated people en masse, is that so many of us can tell that kind of story, too.

The jury needs to start talking, and soon... the longer they are silent, the more the fury builds. They need to become human soon, and bring down the tension level. Not saying people will love them, but I think they won't be so openly hostile after they explain themselves. IMHO.

Thanks for replying to my points, Larry, I do regard that as very respectful.

And the jurors? How do they come out of it? On the one hand, they commendably wrestled with the distinction between a miserable person and a solid case, according to an interview one of them gave to ABC News. On the other, that juror accepted, as a thanks from the network, a trip to Disney World. Another juror hired an agent of sorts to canvass the networks for the most lucrative dish-for-dough arrangement.

How does the incentive of a shocking or unexpected verdict increase jury profits AFTER the trial? Could this be one incentive for a jury to reach a shocking verdict? Should we limit whether jurors can financially benefit?

Sic 'em Daisy! Someone has to defend this poor defenseless child. This has been such an injustice- You go outside your house in the morning, the grass is wet, your car is wet, you assumed & KNOW it rained. You don't know WHEN it rained, or didn't see it rain with your own eyes, but duh- it rained. It's pretty simple. Apparently the Pinellas county jury has no common sense, or any sense of humanity. However, I think street justice will ultimately get Casey. She's the most hated woman in America, after all. :) Can't say I'd be sorry to read THAT headline.